3 ms·

I think getting off of fossil fuels should be a worldwide priority, and expanding fossil fuel exploration is a bad way to spend our time and effort as a species

by clucas 5y ago

I think getting off of fossil fuels should be a worldwide priority, and expanding fossil fuel exploration is a bad way to spend our time and effort as a species. But I don't understand this line: > Moreover, the government has recently decided to expand exploration and production of gas and oil in one of the areas that the very same government acknowledges are most sensitive to climate change—the Arctic Circle. My understanding is that the fossil fuels that may be extracted from the arctic circle would be exported and processed elsewhere. The arctic circle is not going to be more affected by climate change just because the fossil fuels causing climate change came from under the arctic circle, right? Or am I missing something here?

Robotbeat 5y ago
I think the point is partially imprecise (the Arctic is actually particularly sensitive to spills, in addition to its sensitivity to climate change) as well as just kind of highlighting the irony/hypocrisy of the situation. “Well sweet, the Arctic is gonna be ravaged by climate change, but I suppose that makes it easier to extract oil and gas and accelerate that climate change! Woot for us!”
sgpl 5y ago
I think what you're missing is that oil extraction doesn't happen in a vacuum. The externalities of extracting oil from the arctic circle would be massively detrimental to the local environment. Not to mention the fact that any accidental oil spill or a well blowout would wreck havoc on the biodiversity and local species in the region mostly because according to the consensus opinion of many scientists, "we do not have the technology, nor the infrastructure, to deal with the specific challenges of a disaster in this region." Here's a list [1] of a few other reasons on why this is a bad idea. [1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/top-10-reasons-why-arctic-oil-drilling-is-a-really-bad-stupid-idea/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/top-10-reasons-why-arctic-oil...
- clucas 5y ago
  Ahh, this makes sense for why we wouldn't want to drill in the arctic, and I hadn't seen these arguments before, so thank you. The article was very unclear about this - it implied fossil fuel exploration in the arctic is bad because the arctic is "most sensitive to climate change", but what it really should have said is "least able to deal with the environmental damage that inevitably accompanies drilling". Am I still correct that as far as climate change affecting the arctic, burning one barrel of oil extracted from the arctic is the same as burning one barrel of oil extracted from (e.g.) the middle east?
pm90 5y ago
Others have pointed out the ecological reasons. It’s also a sizable chunk of oil and gas that’s currently not very well developed. Once the infrastructure of arctic extraction is built up, the marginal costs of extraction would likely decrease making it easier to extract more oil from the region and consequently harder to keep the carbon in the ground. It’s easier to block new extraction than to shut down an existing development that has jobs and investment dollars committed to it.

by clucas 5y ago

Robotbeat 5y ago

I think the point is partially imprecise (the Arctic is actually particularly sensitive to spills, in addition to its sensitivity to climate change) as well as just kind of highlighting the irony/hypocrisy of the situation. “Well sweet, the Arctic is gonna be ravaged by climate change, but I suppose that makes it easier to extract oil and gas and accelerate that climate change! Woot for us!”

sgpl 5y ago

I think what you're missing is that oil extraction doesn't happen in a vacuum. The externalities of extracting oil from the arctic circle would be massively detrimental to the local environment. Not to mention the fact that any accidental oil spill or a well blowout would wreck havoc on the biodiversity and local species in the region mostly because according to the consensus opinion of many scientists, "we do not have the technology, nor the infrastructure, to deal with the specific challenges of a disaster in this region." Here's a list [1] of a few other reasons on why this is a bad idea. [1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/top-10-reasons-why-arctic-oil-drilling-is-a-really-bad-stupid-idea/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/top-10-reasons-why-arctic-oil...

clucas 5y ago
Ahh, this makes sense for why we wouldn't want to drill in the arctic, and I hadn't seen these arguments before, so thank you. The article was very unclear about this - it implied fossil fuel exploration in the arctic is bad because the arctic is "most sensitive to climate change", but what it really should have said is "least able to deal with the environmental damage that inevitably accompanies drilling". Am I still correct that as far as climate change affecting the arctic, burning one barrel of oil extracted from the arctic is the same as burning one barrel of oil extracted from (e.g.) the middle east?

pm90 5y ago

Others have pointed out the ecological reasons. It’s also a sizable chunk of oil and gas that’s currently not very well developed. Once the infrastructure of arctic extraction is built up, the marginal costs of extraction would likely decrease making it easier to extract more oil from the region and consequently harder to keep the carbon in the ground. It’s easier to block new extraction than to shut down an existing development that has jobs and investment dollars committed to it.